By Kizito Makoye
DAR ES SALAAM , Jun 19 2025 – On the vast plains of Tanzania’s Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), the sight of young Maasai men in bright shawls, wielding sticks as they herd cattle, has long symbolized peaceful coexistence with nature. These herders, moving in harmony with zebras and wildebeests, are inseparable from the landscape. But today, that very identity—nurtured for generations—is under siege.

What is happening in Ngorongoro, a UNESCO World Heritage Site renowned for its ecological and cultural value, is nothing short of a systematic purge of a people who have lived in harmony with nature for centuries.

Since 2022, the Tanzanian government has pushed to relocate tens of thousands of Maasai from Ngorongoro to Msomera, a remote, arid village some 600 kilometers away. Though officials label this as a “voluntary relocation” to protect fragile ecosystems, the reality is far more troubling. This is not conservation—it is dispossession.

As someone who has spent years reporting on Indigenous communities across East Africa, I know that the Maasai are not intruders—they are stewards. Their bomas (thorn-fenced homesteads), rituals, and grazing practices form a sustainable way of life attuned to the rhythms of nature. What’s happening now is an assault not just on their homes, but on their identity.

I’ve watched with growing anguish as this distinctive ethnic group is being driven to the margins—not by war or famine, but by state policies cloaked in the language of “development” and “protection.”

Ask anyone who has visited Ngorongoro: humans and wildlife coexist here in a delicate, thriving balance. The region supports more than 25,000 large animals—including lions, elephants, and the critically endangered black rhinoceros.

Ngorongoro also houses archaeological treasures like Olduvai Gorge, dubbed the “Cradle of Humankind.” It is a place where conservation, archaeology, tourism, and Indigenous rights once coexisted through a multiple land-use model. That balance is now collapsing.

The government’s plan to relocate over 100,000 Maasai is riddled with failures. A recent fact-finding mission revealed the dark side of this relocation effort. Families were lured with promises of fertile, uninhabited land and better services. What awaited them instead was dry land with no pastures, contested plots already claimed by locals, and salty, insufficient water.

Cattle—the backbone of Maasai livelihood—have died in large numbers. Health clinics barely function. Schools are overcrowded. Families are squeezed into identical three-room concrete houses, stripped of the communal structure that defines Maasai society.

Community consultation was shallow or entirely absent. Traditional leaders were sidelined. Compensation procedures lacked transparency. Ultimately, people were presented with a false choice: remain in Ngorongoro and face a withdrawal of services, or leave and risk cultural extinction.

This is part of a disturbing global trend known as “fortress conservation,” where Indigenous people are cast as threats to biodiversity rather than its protectors. But for whose benefit? Tourism revenue? International praise?

In my years of reporting, I’ve met Maasai elders who speak with reverence about their sacred lands. These pastures are not mere grazing grounds—they are the lifeblood of ceremonies, rites of passage, and spiritual rituals. To strip the Maasai of their land is to erase their very essence.

I fear the disappearance—even death—of the Maasai culture. Msomera cannot sustain their way of life. There is no room for their bomas, no pastures for cattle, and no sacred spaces for rituals. The village is too arid, its soils unable to support pastoralism. Many cows have already perished.

I’ve learned from credible sources that social services in Ngorongoro were deliberately withdrawn to coerce the Maasai into relocating. Schools, clinics, and even water services were dismantled. Development funds meant for Ngorongoro were diverted elsewhere. Flying Medical Services, once a lifeline in this remote region, was abruptly halted. Building permits for toilets and classrooms were revoked. This is not conservation. It is institutionalized punishment.

The government’s claim that overpopulation threatens the conservation area collapses under scrutiny. While Maasai homes are being dismantled, tourist lodges are multiplying. Roads to investor compounds are paved and maintained. Roads to villages? Neglected. If ecological preservation is truly the goal, why accommodate investors while evicting Indigenous residents?

The people of Ngorongoro were denied participation in decisions that affect their lives. Their leaders were ignored. Their legal rights to consultation—enshrined in both Tanzanian and international law—were trampled.

The situation in Msomera paints a bleak picture. More than 48 families remain without housing. Those who have homes are packed into identical structures, regardless of family size. Health facilities are almost nonexistent. Schools are overwhelmed. Tensions are rising as original residents challenge the allocation of land.

Let’s be honest: this is not a voluntary relocation. It is a politically calculated operation—one that wears the mask of sustainable development while bulldozing human dignity.

As the world finally acknowledges the critical role of Indigenous knowledge in combating climate change, Tanzania appears to be turning its back on one of its most knowledgeable communities. The Maasai’s way of life—marked by mobility, traditional water harvesting, and sustainable grazing—is precisely what we need more of, not less.

As journalists, we must continue to expose these contradictions. We must challenge the narratives crafted by bureaucrats and investors. We must amplify the voices of the marginalized.

To policymakers, I say this: you cannot conserve nature by destroying its oldest custodians. You cannot build sustainability on the ruins of a culture. And you cannot earn credibility while ignoring the cries of your own citizens.

What is urgently needed is a moratorium on all evictions. Relocation must be paused. Compensation must be fair, participatory, and transparent. Above all, Indigenous land rights must be upheld—not overridden by state power.

True conservation is rooted in partnership, not punishment. In dialogue, not displacement.

As climate threats grow, the world is realizing what the Maasai have known for centuries: that living with nature, not against it, is the only path forward. Tanzania must not squander this wisdom.

There is still time to change course. Until then, the Maasai will resist—and I will continue to write. Because in the face of such injustice, silence is complicity.

Notes: Makoye is a Tanzanian journalist and environmental advocate with extensive experience covering Indigenous rights, conservation, and climate justice issues across East Africa.

This opinion piece is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Excerpt:

The removal of tens of thousands of Maasai from Ngorongoro to Msomera is part of a disturbing global trend known as “fortress conservation,” where Indigenous people are cast as threats to biodiversity rather than its protectors.

By Wambi Michael
KAMPALA, Jun 19 2025 – In East Africa’s Tanzania and Uganda, political tensions are rising as they prepare for the next elections. Tanzania goes to the polls in October 2025, while Uganda’s presidential and general elections will take place early in 2026.

In both countries, the leading political leaders, Tundu Lissu of the Chadema party in Tanzania and Dr. Kizza Besigye, a former leader of the once largest opposition party, are under detention facing treason charges.

Political and civil actors in the two countries and their neighbor Kenya say a wave of repression is sweeping across the region and that democracy and civil liberties are dying across East Africa.

Civil actors have reported numerous cases of torture, abductions, and general human rights abuses that have shrunk civic spaces.

On 10 April 2025, Lissu was charged with treason, along with three offenses of publication of false information under cybercrime laws. The charges are connected to his nationwide campaign pushing for electoral reform under the slogan “No Reforms, No Election.” He appeared in court this week (June 16) and was granted permission to represent himself because, he argued, he was denied access to private consultations with his lawyers.

Shortly after Lissu’s arrest, Chadema was disqualified from the October 2025 presidential and parliamentary elections, based on the party’s refusal to sign an electoral code of conduct.

Lissu narrowly survived an assassination attempt in 2017 and was forced into exile, only to face renewed persecution upon his return to Tanzania.

In the run-up to the November 2024 local elections, Tanzania’s government has impeded opposition meetings, arbitrarily arrested hundreds of opposition supporters, imposed restrictions on social media access and banned independent media.

Four government critics were forcibly disappeared and one Chadema official was abducted and brutally killed.

Forced Deportations, Allegations of Torture

On May 19, when Lissu was returning to the court, authorities in Tanzania ordered the deportation of Kenya’s former Justice Minister, Martha Karua, and Dr. Willy Mutunga, the former Chief Justice of Kenya, together with a couple of journalists from Kenya.

They had traveled to Tanzania under the invitation of the East Africa Law Society. Further, a Kenyan human rights activist, Boniface Mwangi, and a Ugandan activist, Agather Atuhaire, were arrested and held incommunicado for five days despite protests. The two activists said they were badly tortured by Tanzanian police and security operatives.

Atuhaire told IPS that she was blindfolded and sexually molested by her captors, who had driven her and Mwangi out of the Central Police Station in Tanzania.

“They took off all my clothes and threw me down and handcuffed my feet and hands and turned my feet upside down. They put a board between my feet and hands. One was hitting my feet and the other was attacking my private parts,” said Athuaire, a mother of two.

Atuhaire, awardee of the US State Department’s International Women of Courage Awards (IWOC) and winner of the 2023 EU Human Rights Defenders’ Award in Uganda said she has seen impunity in Uganda but what she went through and experienced in Tanzania was at a higher level.

“I faced a policeman who seemed very angry. He threatened us. I think with Boniface, he said they will circumcise him the second time. With me, he said they will teach me, so I have a good story for Uganda when I come back,” Atuhaire recounted.

“He also asked me if I had a child. And I said, ‘What do my children have to do with this?’ I told him that I have two children. Then you will get a third one. When we got out, I told Boniface that I think that is a rape threat,” she said.

Mwangi was found on the border with Tanzania near the coast following widespread condemnation by Kenyans. He was carried to the car because he could hardly walk following the torture.

“My body is broken in so many ways that you will never know but my spirit is very strong. They did very horrible things to us. And those things were recorded. And they told us that if we get back home and share what happened, they will share the videos with everyone,” said Mwangi.

“The situation in Tanzania is very bad. I think what happened to us is what happens to all Tanzanian activists,” he said.

He wondered why a country that belongs to the East African Community could torture citizens from the other member states the way it did to them.

“I had just gone there to attend a court case. I didn’t have any ulterior motive. I was treated worse than a criminal and yet I had not committed any offense,” he said.

Foreign Activists Warned

Tanzania’s President Samia Suluhu, in a televised address, warned foreign activists to stay away from her country.

“Let’s not give them space. They already ruined their own countries. They have already caused chaos. The only country that has not been ruined, where people have security, peace, and stability, is ours. There have been attempts and I strongly urge our security and defense forces, as well as you who manage our foreign policy, not to allow undisciplined individuals from other countries here,” said Suluhu.

Tigere Chagutah, Regional Director, Amnesty International, East and Southern Africa, condemned the torture and inhumane treatment of the two activists.

“For four days, these two human rights defenders were subjected to unimaginable cruelty. Their ordeal highlights the dangers faced by human rights defenders in Tanzania and there must be accountability and justice,” he noted.

Chagutah raised concern about Suluh’s call for a crackdown on human rights defenders, labeling them “foreign agents.”

“Such statements provide state authorities with an unlawful and spurious pretext to impose restrictions flouting international human rights obligations. Trial observation is central to the transparency of court processes and guarantees of fair trials and is not a threat to security,” said Tigere Chagutah.

Social Justice Campaigner, Khalid Hussein in response to Samia Suluhu, said, “You cannot hold foreign nationals, torture them, and then pretend they are meddling and so they deserve what they got.”

Before the arrest of the two activists, Tanzania had deported Kenya’s former Justice Minister, Martha Karua, and Willy Mutunga, the former Chief Justice of Kenya. The two were in Tanzania for a trial observation too.

Karua denied that she was in Tanzania to meddle in its internal affairs, as alleged by Suluhu.

“I was in Tanzania to watch a political trial. In Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda, criminal trials are public. One is entitled to a trial before an impartial court, a trial that is public,” said Karua.

Karua suspected that the authorities in Tanzania were disturbed by her addressing a press conference in April on the need to observe the rule of law, when Tundu Lissu was due to appear in court.

“So as a citizen of the Jumuhiya (East African Community), I went to observe a trial. Nothing wrong with that. We feel as citizens of East Africa we have a duty to stand in solidarity with one another to ensure that we push back on autocratic tendencies and the violation of rights,” said Karua.

Professor Peter Kagwanja, a Kenyan intellectual, advisor, and policy strategist, told IPS that what is happening in Tanzania and its neighbors is regrettable.

“If they are chasing Martha Karua and Dr. Willy Mutunga like that. Can you begin to imagine what is happening to the Tanzanians themselves? Who are Dr. Kabudi and others who want to defend Tundu Lisu?” asked Kagwanja, the President and Chief Executive at the Africa Policy Institute (API).

Lack of Tolerance for Opposition

Kagwanja said what is happening in Tanzania is a sheer lack of tolerance for the opposition, yet the countries claim to be operating under a multiparty democracy.

“And that attitude is what we are seeing in Zimbabwe. It is the same attitude you find in Botswana. That you can push the leader of the opposition to exile. You want to constrain the opposition and their leadership. Rather than talk to them and defeat them politically, you want to defeat them at a battle of violence,” he explained.

“It appears that in Uganda and Tanzania, your ambition to be President is not legitimate. You will either be shot at or languish in jail. And no people from outside should help you out,” Kagwanja added.

While in Uganda for Besigye’s trial, Karua told IPS that it appears like the leaders in Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania are collaborating in oppressing citizens.

“We feel as citizens of East Africa that we have a duty to stand in solidarity to ensure that we push back against autocratic tendencies and the violation of rights,” said Karua.

Besigye was abducted in Nairobi on 16 November 2024. He was arraigned in a military court in Uganda. He was charged with offenses relating to security and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.

While the Kenyan government has denied involvement, it has been accused by human rights activists of supporting and facilitating an extraordinary rendition.

In August 2024, 36 leaders of Uganda’s FDC were abducted from Kisumu city in Kenya. They were charged with terrorism in Ugandan courts and remanded.

Uganda’s Attorney General, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, refuted claims of kidnap, saying that the suspects were lawfully arrested.

“Even the manner in which people are collected, if at all, from a neighboring country or another country is prescribed by law and we are saying that these people were charged,” he said

Karua and Besigye’s lawyers insist that the abduction was the result of collusion between Kenyan and Ugandan authorities.

“I’m stressing rendition because Kenya has an extradition Act which demands that anybody being removed from Kenya to another country for trial must be due process. Due process was not followed. Nor were they documented at the border when being transported into Uganda,” Karua told IPS.

Besigye and the co-accused, Obeid Lutale, were arraigned before the military court.  The Supreme Court in Uganda at the end of January ruled that civilians should not be tried in a military court. After the ruling of the Supreme Court, Besigye was taken to the civilian court with a new charge of treason. The charge before the military court was treachery.

The Ugandan Parliament hastily debated and passed the Uganda People’s Defence Forces Amendment Bill 2025 on 20 May. President Yoweri  has assented to the law, which, among others, broadens the jurisdiction of military courts, authorizing them to try a wide range of offenses against civilians.

Trying Civilians in Military Courts Contravene Human Rights Obligations

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk in May 2025 expressed concern at the passing in Uganda’s Parliament of proposed legislation to allow for civilians to be tried in military courts.

“I am concerned that rather than encouraging efforts to implement the Supreme Court’s crystal-clear decision of January this year, Uganda’s legislators have voted to reinstate and broaden military courts’ jurisdiction to try civilians, which would contravene international human rights law obligations,” said Türk.

As Uganda heads to the polls, diplomats from the European Union have raised concern over the torture of the opposition leaders and their supporters. The diplomats particularly expressed concern about the conduct of the Chief of Defence Forces, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, President Yoweri Museveni’s son.

Early May, Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces Muhoozi Kainerugaba, who is Museveni’s eldest child, said he had detained Eddie Mutwe, the chief bodyguard for opposition leader Bobi Wine.

He wrote on X that he had captured Mutwe “like a grasshopper” and was “using him as a punching bag.” The tortured Mutwe was presented in court and slapped with robbery charges.

Uganda’s Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister, Norbert Mao, said, “Bringing illegally detained, brutalized, and tortured suspects before the courts of law is an abuse of judicial processes.”

Meanwhile, Kainerugaba has promised a showdown on Presidential aspirant, Wine and his supporters.

“I want to remind you to advise your children to stay away from NUP gangs. Intelligence reports indicate that NUP is not merely a political party but is also involved in activities that raise concerns related to terrorism. The leaders of NUP are recruiting young people for activities that could be harmful to our beautiful country,” he warned.

IPS UN Bureau Report

By Hatice Beton, Roberto Durán-Fernández, Dennis Ostwald and Rifat Atun
LONDON, Jun 19 2025 – As G7 leaders of the world’s wealthiest nations wrapped up their summit in Kananaskis June 16, a critical issue was absent from the agenda: the future of global health financing.

Amid escalating geopolitical tensions, trade conflicts and cuts to development aid, health has been sidelined – less than five years since COVID-19 devastated lives, health systems and economies.

With the fiscal space for health shrinking in over 69 countries, it’s time to recognise that health financing is no longer solely a public sector concern; it is a fundamental pillar of economic productivity, stability, and resilience.

A glimmer of hope has emerged from South Africa, the current G20 Presidency host, and from the World Health Organization (WHO). A landmark health financing resolution, adopted at last month’s World Health Assembly calls on countries to take ownership of their health funding and increase domestic investment.

While this is a promising step, the prevailing discourse continues to rely on outdated solutions which are often slow to implement and fall short of what is needed.

Invest Smarter, Not Just More, in Health

Recent trends among G20 countries show that annual healthcare expenditure is actually declining across member states. In 2022, health expenditure dropped in 18 out of 20 G20 nations, leading to increased out-of-pocket expenses for citizens.

While countries like Japan, Australia, and Canada demonstrate a direct correlation between higher per capita health expenditure and increased life expectancy, others, such as Russia, India, and South Africa, show the opposite.

This disparity underscores a crucial point: the quality and efficiency of investment matters more than quantity. Smart investment encompasses efficient resource allocation, equitable access to affordable care, effective disease prevention and management, and broader determinants of health like lifestyle, education, and environmental factors.

Achieving positive outcomes hinges on balancing health funding – the operational costs – with sustainable health financing – the capital costs.

Private capital is already moving into health, what’s missing is coordination and strategic alignment

Despite the surge in healthcare private equity reaching USD 480 billion between 2020 and 2024, many in the sector remain unaware of this significant shift. Recent G20 efforts have focused on innovative financing tools, but what’s truly needed are systemic reforms that reframe health as a core pillar of financial stability, economic resilience, and geopolitical security, not just a public service.

This year’s annual Health20 Summit at the WHO, supporting the G20 Health and Finance Ministers Meetings, addresses this need by launching a new compass for health financing: a groundbreaking report on the “Health Taxonomy – A Common Investment Toolkit to Scale Up Future Investments in Health.”

Why do we need an investment map for health?

The answer is simple: since the first ever G20 global health discussions under Germany’s G20 Presidency in 2017, there has been no consistent effort to rethink or coordinate investments. G20 countries still lack a strategic dialogue between governments, health and finance ministries, investors and the private sector.

Market-Driven, Government-Incentivised: The Path Forward

Building on the European Union’s Green Taxonomy, the health taxonomy aims to foster a shared understanding and common language among governments, companies, and investors to drive sustainable health financing. Investors, Asset Managers, Venture Capitalists, G20 Ministries of Health and Finance, Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and International Organisations broadly agree that a market-driven taxonomy is both credible and practical.

Governments can have greater confidence knowing it has been tested with investors and is grounded in market realities.

The Health Taxonomy report identifies a key barrier to progress: the fundamental confusion between health funding and health financing: Health financing refers to the system that manages health investments, such as raising revenue, pooling resources and purchasing services. In contrast, health funding refers to the actual sources of money.

Increasing health funding alone will not improve health outcomes if the financing system is poorly designed. Conversely, a well-developed health financing framework won’t succeed without sufficient funding. Both are essential and must work together.

The health taxonomy has the potential to serve as a vital tool for policy planning sessions, strategic boardroom discussions and investment committees, thereby enabling health to be readily integrated into existing portfolios and strategies. It could also support more systematic assessments of health-related risks and economic impacts, including through existing processes like the IMF’s Article IV consultations and other macroeconomic surveillance frameworks.

The report urges leading G20 health and finance ministers to rethink and align on joint principles for health funding and financing.

The next pandemic could be more severe, more persistent, and more costly. Failure to invest adequately in health before the next crisis is a systemic risk our leaders can no longer afford to ignore.

Hatice Beton is Co-Founder, H20Summit; Roberto Durán-Fernández; PhD, is Tec de Monterrey School of Government, Former Member of the WHO’s Economic Council; Dennis Ostwald is Founder & CEO, WifOR Institute (Germany); Rifat Atun is Professor of Global Health Systems, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

IPS UN Bureau

By Stephanie Hodge
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 19 2025 – Ten years ago, I lost more than a job.

When my post was abolished, there was no warning, no closure, no golden parachute—just a quiet erasure. Overnight, I went from a UN professional with decades of service to an invisible statistic in a system that eats its own.

I wasn’t just de-linked from my role—I was cut off from my health insurance, my professional identity, my community, and the safety net I thought I’d built after a lifetime of service.

What’s the real cost of that? Let me try to count it.

The Financial Toll

Over ten years, I’ve conservatively lost between $1.7 and $2.4 million USD—not in stock options or startup fantasies, but in the very basic elements of working life:

• Salary: Gone. A UN professional with my experience (at the P5/D1 level) typically earns around $120,000–$150,000 a year. That’s over $1.2 million in wages lost—and that’s before accounting for inflation.
• Pension: For every year you’re out of the UN system, your pension erodes. I’ve lost another $300,000+ in employer and personal contributions to retirement.
• Health Insurance: When you lose your job, you lose your healthcare. For ten years, I’ve covered out-of-pocket care for my dependent—including during health emergencies. I’ve spent $50,000–$200,000 USD just trying to keep her well and safe.
• Missed Opportunities: I should have been leading evaluations, directing global programs, mentoring the next generation. Instead, I was just trying to survive. Lost networks, lost credibility, lost consulting income. Easily another $200,000–$400,000 in forgone earnings.

The Emotional Toll

The numbers don’t tell the whole story. They don’t reflect what it’s like to wake up every morning wondering if your work ever mattered. They don’t show the moments I had to choose between groceries and another round of lab tests for my mother. They don’t capture the professional shame, the panic, the quiet disbelief that no one came looking.

It’s not just a system failure. It’s a human one.

Why Reform Can’t Wait

You can’t claim to be a values-based organization while discarding your own people in silence. And yet that is what too many international agencies do—cutting technical posts under the guise of restructuring, while retaining bloated management layers and generalist positions with no clear public value.

We need a reset. Here’s where to start:

1. Guarantee Transitional Support for Abolished Posts

Abolition should never mean abandonment. Staff whose posts are cut must be offered:

• Transitional pay and benefits (healthcare continuation, pension bridging)
• Career re-entry guarantees within a defined period
• Support for relocation, re-skilling, and reference protections

2. Protect Technical Expertise

Organizations must stop privileging coordination over content. The future depends on knowledge—gender, climate, health, evaluation, biodiversity, education. We need fewer PowerPoint czars and more people who’ve actually done the work.

Create:

• Technical career tracks with promotion potential
• Fixed-term roles with mobility protections for those in niche or field-based posts
• Internal pools for technical surge deployment

3. Build Accountability into Human Resource Systems

Too often, posts are abolished due to politics, personal vendettas, or vague restructurings. There must be:

• Transparent criteria for abolishment
• Independent review panels for contested decisions
• Data tracking on who is let go and why—disaggregated by gender, nationality, race, and contract type

4. Rebalance Power and Purpose

The system is top-heavy and risk-averse. It’s time to rebalance:

• Elevate field voices, not just headquarters control
• Fund delivery and results—not endless strategy papers
• Measure success by impact, not institutional expansion

Rebuilding, Not Returning

I’ve spent the last decade slowly rebuilding. Consulting, evaluating, speaking truth to power. I’ve advised governments, walked the garbage-strewn backstreets of Jakarta, listened to stories from herders in Mali and coral farmers in Seychelles. My skills didn’t vanish. My value didn’t die.

But I’ve had to fight for every contract. Every inch of ground.

And I’ve come to understand this: abolition doesn’t end a career—it reveals what the system never saw in the first place.

To Those Who’ve Been Abolished

If you’ve lost your job, your anchor, your sense of place—this is for you. You are not expendable. You are not a line in a budget or a casualty of “restructuring.”

You are the system’s conscience, even if it forgot your name.

We are still here. We are still needed.

And we are not done.

Stephanie Hodge is an international evaluator and former UN advisor who has worked across 140 countries. She writes on governance, multilateral reform, and climate equity.

IPS UN Bureau

By Zofeen Ebrahim
THIMPU, Bhutan, Jun 18 2025 – “I can’t get this anywhere else,” says Tshering Lhamo, a 29-year-old shopkeeper in Thimphu, as she gestures toward the clean Himalayan air outside her thangka shop. She once studied in Kuala Lumpur but came back to Bhutan for the peace—and the purity. Her friend, Kezan Jatsho, who has never left the country, adds, “I cherish the peace here,” even as many of their peers migrate abroad.

But the serenity they speak of is under threat.

Bhutan, a tiny Himalayan kingdom of 745,000 people—roughly the size of Switzerland—is lauded as the world’s first and only carbon-negative country. Forests cover over 72 percent of the land, and the constitution mandates that no less than 60 percent remain forested forever. Clean air, abundant water, and natural beauty define life here.

This environmental commitment is not new. Since 1972, Bhutan’s national philosophy of Gross National Happiness (GNH) has prioritized well-being over GDP, championing sustainability, cultural preservation, and equitable growth.

“Money can’t buy contentment,” says 33-year-old business graduate Kezan Jatsho, who dreams of opening a coffee shop one day. “I just need enough for food and clothes; too much money would be a burden, stealing my peace of mind.”

Yet Bhutan’s climate security is more precarious than it appears. The country’s location in the eastern Himalayas makes it especially vulnerable to the impacts of global warming. Glacial melt is accelerating. Flash floods and landslides have become more frequent. Hydropower infrastructure—one of Bhutan’s economic lifelines—is at risk.

“Bhutan remains disproportionately vulnerable to climate change, through no fault of its own,” says Karma Dupchu, director of the National Center for Hydrology and Meteorology. His agency warns that a temperature rise of up to 2.8°C by 2100 could trigger catastrophic glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). Bhutan has over 560 glacial lakes, and in the past 70 years, 18 GLOF events have already caused loss of life and damage.

The Cost of Preparedness

Preparing for the future requires money Bhutan does not have. “The costs of adaptation and mitigation are extremely high,” says Finance Minister Lyonpo Lekey Dorji. The country’s National Adaptation Plan is projected to cost nearly USD 14 billion.

Despite limited resources, Bhutan is not standing still. Nearly 50,000 trained volunteers—known as desuups, or “Guardians of Peace”—can be mobilized during natural disasters. Even cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister serve as desuups. “They volunteered in Nepal’s 2015 earthquake,” the finance minister notes proudly.

But for long-term resilience, more investment is needed—in early warning systems, in climate-resilient agriculture, and in off-grid energy for the 4,000 rural families still lacking electricity. “The farmers lack the resources and capacity to address the challenges of climate change,” says Dupchu.

Tshering Lhamo, in her shop where she sells handmade paintings. Lhamo values the clean Himalayan air. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS

Between Migration and Mindfulness

The climate crisis is only one part of the story. Bhutan is also confronting an “existential” demographic crisis, driven by a wave of outward migration. More than 12,000 people have left for Australia since the COVID-19 pandemic—many of them young, educated, and fluent in English.

“Today, 10 percent of the population has left,” says the finance minister. “Most are from the working-age group. In all, some 30,000 Bhutanese have migrated in the last two decades.”

To counter this brain drain, Bhutan’s Fifth King, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, has unveiled an ambitious solution: the Gelephu Mindfulness City (GMC), a futuristic economic zone grounded in Bhutanese values. “We realize that to achieve and to continue holding on to GNH, economic development is necessary,” acknowledged the finance minister.

“It’s a new Bhutan with different rules from the rest of the country and a new model of robust economic development,” says Rabsel Dorji, head of communications for the project. “It aims to attract and retain the working-age population by offering well-paid jobs, creating a place where development and wealth can co-exist alongside tradition and sacred values.”

The stakes are high. “If GMC succeeds,” Dorji says, “it can show the world that a city can be created without displacing nature or the people who already live there.”

And if it fails? Dorji just smiles: “Nothing the King does ever fails.”

Culture as a Climate Strategy

Even as Bhutan looks to modernize, its culture remains its most powerful form of resilience. In Thimphu, traffic lights have been rejected in favor of hand gestures from white-gloved police officers. Traditional dress—kira for women and gho for men—is not a costume but daily wear. Brightly colored prayer flags ripple in the mountain breeze. Sacred peaks are never climbed. “Nature is not something to be conquered, but something to be respected,” says Kinley Dorji, a journalist and editor of the Druk Journal. “We emphasize the preservation of our culture—architecture and the arts, spiritual values, and dress code—to be different and look different.”

When Bhutan transitioned to democracy in 2008 after a century of monarchy, it was by royal decree, not revolution. The literacy rate now exceeds 90 percent. Healthcare is free. And despite limited military or economic power, Bhutan’s spiritual and ecological identity remains a source of strength.

“In the absence of military might and economic strength… our unique identity is our strength,” says Kinley Dorji. “The average Bhutanese may not be widely traveled, but they know what matters. People were skeptical about democracy, as they thought it would bring corruption and violence.”

Hydropower and Hope

Nature does not only sustain Bhutan; it powers its economy. Hydroelectricity—mostly sold to India—generates 14 percent of GDP and more than a quarter of government revenue. In 2021, Bhutan produced nearly 11,000 GWh of power, exporting over 80 percent of it.

The country plans to harness an additional 20 GW of renewable energy by 2040, including 5 GW from solar. But even that will require external support. “We need huge investments for this to become a reality,” says the finance minister.

To make tourism more sustainable post-COVID, Bhutan reopened its borders with a revised Sustainable Development Fee—$100 per night for foreign tourists and just ₹1,200 (US$14) for Indian nationals.

Still, sacred sites remain off-limits. “The mountains are home of deities,” Kinley Dorji reminds. “They’re not meant to be conquered.”

A Global Story of Local Survival

In Bhutan, climate change is not a future threat—it’s a present reality. But it’s also a moral argument for global responsibility.

Unlike Greta Thunberg’s urgent call to action, Bhutanese youth aren’t protesting in the streets. Their quiet, inherited mindfulness—combined with progressive government policy—has embedded intergenerational climate justice into the national identity.

But without significant international investment, Bhutan’s future remains as fragile as its glacial lakes.

“I am full of desires for things,” says Tshering Lhamo, “but I also know if I go after them, it will destroy me.”

Bhutan stands at a crossroads between survival and sacrifice, tradition and transformation. Its model is not perfect—but it offers the world something rare: a vision of development that does not cost the Earth.

IPS UN Bureau Report

By CIVICUS
Jun 18 2025 –  
CIVICUS discusses the dangers of live facial recognition technology with Madeleine Stone, Senior Advocacy Officer at Big Brother Watch, a civil society organisation that campaigns against mass surveillance and for digital rights in the UK.

Madeleine Stone

The rapid expansion of live facial recognition technology across the UK raises urgent questions about civil liberties and democratic freedoms. The Metropolitan Police have begun permanently installing live facial recognition cameras in South London, while the government has launched a £20 million (approx. US$27 million) tender to expand its deployment nationwide. Civil society warns that this technology presents serious risks, including privacy infringements, misidentification and function creep. As authorities increasingly use these systems at public gatherings and demonstrations, concerns grow about their potential to restrict civic freedoms.

How does facial recognition technology work?

Facial recognition technology analyses an image of a person’s face to create a biometric map by measuring distances between facial features, creating a unique pattern as distinctive as a fingerprint. This biometric data is converted into code for matching against other facial images.

It has two main applications. One-to-one matching compares someone’s face to a single image – like an ID photo – to confirm identity. More concerning is one-to-many matching, where facial data is scanned against larger databases. This form is commonly used by law enforcement, intelligence agencies and private companies for surveillance.

How is it used in the UK?

The technology operates in three distinct ways in the UK. Eight police forces in England and Wales currently deploy it, with many others considering adoption. In retail, shops use it to scan customers against internal watchlists.

The most controversial is live facial recognition – mass surveillance in real time. Police use CCTV cameras with facial recognition software to scan everyone passing by, mapping faces and instantly comparing them to watchlists of wanted people for immediate interception.

Retrospective facial recognition works differently, taking still images from crime scenes or social media and running them against existing police databases. This happens behind closed doors as part of broader investigations.

And there’s a third type: operator-initiated recognition, where officers use a phone app to take a photo of someone they are speaking to on the street, which is checked against a police database of custody images in real time. While it doesn’t involve continuous surveillance like live facial recognition, it’s still taking place in the moment and raises significant concerns about the police’s power to perform biometric identity checks at will.

What makes live facial recognition particularly dangerous?

It fundamentally violates democratic principles, because it conducts mass identity checks on everyone in real time, regardless of suspicion. This is the equivalent to police stopping every passerby to check DNA or fingerprints. It gives police extraordinary power to identify and track people without knowledge or consent.

The principle at the heart of any free society is that suspicion should come before surveillance, but this technology completely reverses this logic. Instead of investigating after reasonable cause, it treats everyone as a potential suspect, undermining privacy and eroding presumed innocence.

The threat to civic freedoms is severe. Anonymity in crowds is central to protest, because it makes you part of a collective rather than an isolated dissenter. Live facial recognition destroys this anonymity and creates a chilling effect: people become less likely to protest knowing they’ll be biometrically identified and tracked.

Despite the United Nations warning against using biometric surveillance at protests, UK police have deployed it at demonstrations against arms fairs, environmental protests at Formula One events and during King Charles’s coronation. Similar tactics are being introduced at Pride events in Hungary and were used to track people attending opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s funeral in Russia. That these authoritarian methods now appear in the UK, supposedly a rights-respecting democracy, is deeply concerning.

What about accuracy and bias?

The technology is fundamentally discriminatory. While algorithm details remain commercially confidential, independent studies show significantly lower accuracy for women and people of colour as algorithms have largely been trained on white male faces. Despite improvements in recent years, the performance of facial recognition algorithms remains worse for women of colour.

This bias compounds existing police discrimination. Independent reports have found that UK policing already exhibits systemic racist, misogynistic and homophobic biases. Black communities face disproportionate criminalisation, and biased technology deepens these inequalities. Live facial recognition technology can lead to discriminatory outcomes even with a hypothetically perfectly accurate algorithm. If police watchlists were to disproportionately feature people of colour, the system would repeatedly flag them, reinforcing over-policing patterns. This feedback loop validates bias through the constant surveillance of the same communities.

Deployment locations reveal targeting patterns. London police use mobile units in poorer areas with higher populations of people of colour. One of the earliest deployments was during Notting Hill Carnival, London’s biggest celebration of Afro-Caribbean culture – a decision that raised serious targeting concerns.

Police claims of improving reliability ignore this systemic context. Without confronting discrimination in policing, facial recognition reinforces the injustices it claims to address.

What legal oversight exists?

None. Without a written constitution, UK policing powers evolved through common law. Police therefore argue that vague common law powers to prevent crime oversee their use of facial recognition, falsely claiming it enhances public safety.

Parliamentary committees have expressed serious concerns about this legal vacuum. Currently, each police force creates its own rules, deciding deployment locations, watchlist criteria and safeguards. They even use different algorithms with varying accuracy and bias levels. For such intrusive technology, this patchwork approach is unacceptable.

A decade after police began trials began in 2015, successive governments have failed to introduce regulation. The new Labour government is considering regulations, but we don’t know whether this means comprehensive legislation or mere codes of practice.

Our position is clear: this technology shouldn’t be used at all. However, if a government believes there is a case for the use of this technology in policing, there must be primary legislation in place that specifies usage parameters, safeguards and accountability mechanisms.

The contrast with Europe is stark. While imperfect, the European Union’s (EU) AI Act introduces strong safeguards on facial recognition and remote biometric identification. The EU is miles ahead of the UK. If the UK is going to legislate, it should take inspiration from the EU’s AI Act and ensure prior judicial authorisation is required for the use of this technology, only those suspected of serious crimes are placed on watchlists and it is never used as evidence in court.

How are you responding?

Our strategy combines parliamentary engagement, public advocacy and legal action.

Politically, we work across party lines. In 2023, we coordinated a cross-party statement signed by 65 members of parliament (MPs) and backed by dozens of human rights groups, calling for a halt due to racial bias, legal gaps and privacy threats.

On the ground, we attend deployments in Cardiff and London to observe usage and offer legal support to wrongly stopped people. Reality differs sharply from police claims. Over half those stopped aren’t wanted for arrest. We’ve documented shocking cases: a pregnant woman pushed against a shopfront and arrested for allegedly missing probation, and a schoolboy misidentified by the system. The most disturbing cases involve young Black people, demonstrating embedded racial bias and the dangers of trusting flawed technology.

We’re also supporting a legal challenge submitted by Shaun Thompson, a volunteer youth worker wrongly flagged by this technology. Police officers surrounded him and, although he explained the mistake, held him for 30 minutes and attempted to take fingerprints when he couldn’t produce ID. Our director filmed the incident and is a co-claimant in a case against the Metropolitan Police, arguing that live facial recognition violates human rights law.

Public support is crucial. You can follow us online, join our supporters’ scheme or donate monthly. UK residents should write to MPs and the Policing Minister. Politicians need to hear all of our voices, not just those of police forces advocating for more surveillance powers.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
TikTok
Twitter/Big Brother Watch
Twitter/Madeleine Stone
YouTube

SEE ALSO
Facial recognition: the latest weapon against civil society CIVICUS Lens 23.May.2025
Weaponised surveillance: how spyware targets civil society CIVICUS Lens 24.Apr.2025
Human rights take a backseat in AI regulation CIVICUS Lens 16.Jan.2024

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 18 2025 – Although access to mental health and psychosocial support services is considered a fundamental human right by the United Nations (UN), hundreds of millions of people experience limited or inadequate access to mental health and psychosocial support services.

On June 6, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO) published a joint summary report on the wellbeing and development of children and adolescents around the world. In this report, the two organizations underscored the risks of neglecting the importance of mental health and called for systemic change in access to critical care.

According to UNICEF and WHO, the global government expenditure for mental health services accounts for only 2 percent of the overall global health budget, with only a fraction going toward children and adolescents. This is particularly alarming, as UN-Women estimates that nearly 20 percent of global health emergencies are a result of mental and psychological conditions.

“The right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health will only be realised if investment in mental health is increased and improved. It is important to understand what the current financial situation is across the world, and this report shows that it is not good,” said James Sale, the Director of Policy, Advocacy and Finance at United for Global Mental Health (UnitedGMH). “With the growing interest in improving mental health, now is the time to redouble our efforts in encouraging governments and donors to provide the money that is desperately needed by so many.”

WHO states that in some countries, up to 90 percent of individuals facing severe mental health challenges receive no care at all. Additionally, many mental health systems globally rely on “outdated institutional models”, falling short of modern international human rights standards. Furthermore, UnitedGMH states there is currently a USD 200 billion gap in annual funding for mental health and psychosocial services, with the majority of the world’s nations falling far below modest mental health baselines.

This leaves children across the world vulnerable to suicide, a reduced quality of life, and stunted social and professional development. To ensure that all young people face equal opportunities for success, it is imperative that governments and other relevant stakeholders, including the private sector, work together to increase funding for mental health and psychosocial support services.

“There are two key stages in childhood for reaching one’s full potential: the early years of life and, later, starting around the age of 10. This age represents a second opportunity to stimulate development and build adolescents’ coping mechanisms. It is essential that they are supported in making their own decisions, participating in community life, and not remaining passive,” said Angela Capcelea, Head of the Health Section at UNICEF.

Funding is particularly scarce in lower-income countries, in which it is estimated that there is fewer than one mental healthcare professional for every one million young people. Additionally, the psychosocial needs of young people in developing countries are compounded by higher rates of violence, armed conflict, natural disasters, heightened social stigma, and an overall lack of basic services.

According to figures from UN Women, almost every person that lives through a protracted humanitarian crisis experiences significant levels of psychological distress. One in five of these people are estimated to develop long-term mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.

UN Women states that due to constant bombardment, displacement, and a lack of basic services in Gaza, the mental health of young women and girls is currently at a “breaking point”. It is estimated that roughly 75 percent of women in Gaza experience depression, 62 percent experience insomnia, and 65 percent experience nightmares and anxiety.

In Afghanistan, roughly 68 percent of women describe their mental health as being “bad” or “very bad”, with eight percent also reporting that they personally know someone who has attempted suicide. Due to the numerous edicts in Afghanistan that restrict women’s autonomy, as well as a strong social stigma around mental health, the majority of women and girls are left with virtually no psychosocial resources.

Additionally, cuts in the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have decimated global funding for mental health and psychosocial support programs, with many reporting that they had to cease or scale back operations. According to the Global Mental Health Action Network, there were 131 global programs, including 9,343 staff, that were providing mental health care to vulnerable communities. Roughly 73 percent of these positions were cut.

Furthermore, over 50,000 people across 32 countries that were training to become mental health practitioners lost access to their education. In 2025, approximately 5,908 people will receive training, marking a stark decline from the 55,911 people in 2024. WHO projects that the global number of mental health workers will fall to roughly 10 million by 2030, with low and middle-income countries facing shortages of approximately 1.18 million mental health workers.

“My program works with unaccompanied minors. Due to budget cuts, over 60% of staff have been furloughed and in process of being laid off,” said Lucy Onen Adoch, the Partnerships Program Coordinator for StrongMinds in Uganda, a nonprofit organization that provides mental healthcare support for depression. “The government halted access to funds that directly impact mental health services to unaccompanied minors and their families, as well as access to case management services and connection to community resources such as education and legal services.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jun 18 2025 – Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities may be justified if one takes Netanyahu’s explanation at face value. I doubt, however, if he and Trump have fully considered the ominous regional ramifications of the attack and whether negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program would have led to much more positive results.

Netanyahu has finally executed what he has been itching to do for many years—attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and army installations and decapitating many of its military commanders and nuclear scientists.

Even though Trump first appeared to have distanced himself from the Israeli operation, there is simply no doubt that he gave the green light to it, without which Netanyahu would not have dared to make such a move that may well draw the US into the fray and plunge the entire region into a war, potentially with horrific ramifications.

Trump and Netanyahu developed a strategy whereby the United States would deny any involvement in Israel’s decision to attack Iran. They warned Tehran, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.

President Trump and the administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel.”

On Wednesday, Trump expressed misgivings about reaching a negotiated agreement during the sixth round of negotiations between US and Iranian representatives scheduled for next Sunday in Qatar. By that time, he was already aware of Netanyahu’s pending attack.

Although many high-ranking Democrats and Republicans repudiated Netanyahu for daring to take such an ominous action when another round of talks was set, they appear oblivious to what was agreed upon behind the scenes between Trump and Netanyahu.

Netanyahu would attack, and the US would distance itself to prevent Iran from attacking American military targets in the region, knowing that Iran would want to avoid a direct confrontation with the US. The US, however, would come to Israel’s defense by intercepting incoming ballistic missiles.

Trump’s response to the attack on his Truth Social site says it all, threatening further attacks unless Iran accepts a nuclear deal. In a lengthy post, he stated:

“I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to “just do it,” but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn’t get it done. I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated… Certain Iranian hardliner’s [sic] spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

Furthermore, Trump also described the Israeli attack as “excellent” in an ABC interview and cautioned that “there’s more to come – a lot more,” unless Iran agrees to a deal.

The problem here is that, regardless of how weak Iran is as a result of Israel’s successful campaign to diminish Iran’s axis of resistance, Hezbollah and Hamas, and their shattered air defense systems as a result of Israel’s attack a few months ago, Iran still retains a formidable military power and is not about to surrender. To suggest that the Ayatollah will resume negotiations after being humiliated is foolish.

Iran will not succumb and will retaliate against Israel, and regardless of the extent of damage and destruction it will sustain, Iran will want to preserve their pride, and for that, it will be more than willing to sacrifice a great deal more.

The Iranian people, who largely detest their regime, will now rally behind it as they view the Israeli attack with the support of the US as only humiliating, but it will further worsen the economic condition in the country, from which they have already been suffering.

Another outcome of the Israel-US miscalculation is that the attack has only strengthened the voices of many Iranian hardline officials who oppose negotiations with the US in the first place. They had serious doubts about the US’s real intentions, and now they feel vindicated as it became increasingly clear that Trump has given the blessing to Netanyahu.

Moreover, although the Arab Gulf states may quietly cheer the destruction that Israel inflicted on Iran, they are now in a state not only of apprehension but fear that they may be dragged into a war they do not want.

Any regional war will have major economic ramifications, which set back their economic development, which they prize the most, and especially their concerns over the disruption of their oil exports, which is the beating heart of their economies.

Israel’s attack on Iran with US support will further push Iran into Russia’s and China’s arms. For these two countries, it is a heaven-sent development and they will spare no effort to capitalize on it and squeeze all the geostrategic benefits at the expense of the US in particular.

Finally, even if Israel manages to destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which is unlikely, it will only be a matter of time for it to rebuild and resume its nuclear program, except this time it will do so even with greater vigor and determination to produce nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, Iran would more than likely withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and open the door to regional nuclear proliferation, which successive US administrations wanted to avoid.

Trump and Netanyahu seem to have forgotten that Iran is a regional powerhouse with a population of 90 million, has enormous natural and human resources, enjoys a crucial geostrategic location, and a rich history that endows it with a unique regional presence. Even after suffering a devastating war, Iran will emerge again as a major power that Trump and Netanyahu must reckon with. Iran is here to stay, and Israel and the US will have to live with it.

Regardless of how the current hostilities end, the long-term solution to Iran’s nuclear program is at the negotiating table. Trump’s desire to reach a quick solution to show some success, especially after having failed to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, might have doomed the negotiations with Iran.

And Netanyahu, who is politically beleaguered at home and has been itching to attack Iran and wants to emerge as a hero, decided to exploit Iran’s weakness without carefully considering that the price that Israel might have to pay later will far outweigh what he might have gained today.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

Registering the birth of a newborn, which is taken for granted in many countries, has profound lifelong repercussions for a child’s health, protection, and well-being. But after initially increasing this century, the global birth registration rate has declined in the past ten years, with some countries in the Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa facing significant challenges. […]

By Kizito Makoye
NICE, France, Jun 17 2025 – With less than six harvest seasons left to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the urgency to find transformative solutions to end hunger, protect the oceans, and build climate resilience dominated the ninth panel session at the 2025 United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, France.

In a moment emblematic of growing African leadership in ocean sustainability, Tanzania took center stage during the panel titled “Promoting the Role of Sustainable Food from the Ocean for Poverty Eradication and Food Security.” The panel offered not only a scientific and policy-rich exchange of ideas but also a rare glimpse into how countries like Tanzania are positioning aquatic foods as engines of economic recovery, public health, and ecological sustainability.

A Defining Voice From the Swahili Coast

Co-chairing the session, Shaaban Ali Othman, Minister for Blue Economy and Fisheries of Zanzibar, part of the United Republic of Tanzania, laid out his country’s blueprint for harnessing ocean resources without compromising marine ecosystems.

“Our survival is intimately tied to the ocean. It feeds us, it employs our people, and it holds the promise to lift millions out of poverty,” Othman said, advocating for a redefinition of how the world views aquatic food systems. “But this can only happen if we manage them responsibly.”

He emphasized that for Tanzania, the blue economy is not a buzzword—it is a foundational strategy woven into national development planning. As climate change intensifies and traditional farming struggles under erratic rainfall, coastal and inland aquatic foods offer a viable, nutrient-dense alternative for the country’s growing population.

“Communities in Zanzibar and along the Tanzanian coastline have fished for generations, but now we must ensure those practices are not just traditional, but also sustainable and inclusive,” Othman said.

He pointed to Zanzibar’s push to increase seaweed farming, particularly among women, as a double dividend for nutrition and gender equity. He also highlighted new investments in cold storage and fish processing facilities aimed at reducing post-harvest losses—currently among the highest in the region.

The Global Science Backs Tanzania’s Approach

His remarks resonated with the scientific panelists, particularly Jörn Schmidt, Science Director for Sustainable Aquatic Food Systems at WorldFish, who urged countries to bring aquatic foods “from the margins to the mainstream.”

“Aquatic foods are one of the few tools that can simultaneously tackle poverty, hunger, and climate risk,” said Schmidt. “But they are often left off the table—both literally and figuratively.”

Schmidt called for urgent action on three fronts: nutrition, production, and equity. He cited research showing that even modest increases in aquatic food consumption in the first 1,000 days of life could significantly reduce stunting and improve cognitive development. For production, he recommended low-impact, high-return systems such as seaweed and bivalves. On equity, he urged secure tenure for small-scale fishers, gender inclusion, and expanded social protections.

Barange noted that in 2023 alone, global fish production hit 189 million tons, delivering about 21 kilograms of aquatic animal protein per capita. However, an alarming 23.8 million tons—almost 15 percent—was lost or wasted due to poor handling and inefficient distribution systems.

“These losses are not just about food—they are lost nutrition, lost income, and lost opportunity,” said Barange, adding that if properly managed, aquatic foods could be the backbone of a global “blue transformation.”

Tanzania’s Call for Equity and Innovation

Othman used the opportunity to underline that the success of aquatic food systems must also address inequality—particularly the role of women and youth in the sector.

“Across Tanzania, from Kigamboni to Kilwa, women are drying fish, farming seaweed, and selling aquatic produce in markets. But they need access to capital, to better technology, and most importantly, to decision-making spaces,” he said.

To that end, Tanzania has begun piloting aquatic food training centres aimed at equipping youth with climate-smart aquaculture skills, including sustainable pond farming and low-carbon feed techniques.

“This is how we move from potential to prosperity,” Othman said.

A Blueprint for Global Action

The panel also featured a range of high-level contributions aimed at linking aquatic foods to broader development frameworks. Rhea Moss-Christian, Executive Director of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, underscored the economic lifeline that tuna fisheries represent for small island developing states. She emphasized that tuna is not just a food source, but a pillar of public finance, especially in the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.

“Let’s be clear,” she said. “In some Pacific nations, tuna revenue funds schools, hospitals and roads. A healthy tuna fishery is existential.”

Her message echoed Tanzania’s own struggle to balance economic imperatives with conservation, especially in the face of illegal fishing and weak monitoring infrastructure. Minister Othman called for stronger regional cooperation in fighting these threats, including shared surveillance and satellite-based monitoring systems.

CGIAR and the Seaweed Solution

Adding another layer of urgency, Dr. Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted of CGIAR warned that the world is “falling behind on SDG 2 and SDG 14.” She championed seaweed as a sustainable aquatic superfood with enormous potential, particularly for South Asia and Africa.

“Tanzania, with its long coastline and established seaweed culture, is ideally placed to lead in this domain,” she said.

She called for more public and private investment to scale innovations, support local entrepreneurs, and integrate aquatic foods into school feeding and public procurement programmes.

“Let us not miss this opportunity,” she added. “The sea can feed us—if we let it.”

Resilience in the Face of Crisis

Ciyong Zou, Deputy Director-General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), highlighted the broader resilience benefits of aquatic food systems. He noted that aquatic foods support over 3 billion people globally, yet post-harvest losses—up to 30 percent in developing countries—undermine their potential.

He offered case studies from Cambodia and Sudan, where targeted investments in processing and training led to higher incomes and improved child nutrition. He announced UNIDO’s voluntary commitment to expand technical support to 10 additional coastal nations by 2030.

“For countries like Tanzania, this could mean new tools, cleaner production methods, and more resilient livelihoods,” Zou said.

Call to Action

As the panel drew to a close, one theme stood out: aquatic food systems are not merely about fish or seaweed—they are about dignity, sovereignty, and survival.

“We need to democratize access to data, empower communities, and ensure that small-scale fishers, especially women, are not left behind,” Othman insisted.

Back in Tanzania, the ripple effects of such commitments are already being felt. In Kisiwa Panza, a small island in Pemba, a women-led seaweed cooperative recently began exporting to Europe, thanks to technical support from local NGOs and government backing. “It’s a new life,” said Asha Mzee, one of the cooperative’s founders. “Before, we fished only what we needed. Now, we grow for the world.”

With nations like Tanzania stepping forward, the ocean—so long exploited—is being reimagined as a source of renewal. But the clock is ticking.

“In 2030, we’ll be asked what we did with these six remaining harvests,” Othman said in his final remarks. “Let’s ensure our answer is-we used them to feed people, protect our planet, and leave no one behind.”

IPS UN Bureau Report